Mormons Baptize Parents of Nazi-Hunter Simon Wiesenthal

World News • February 2012 • Views: 1,602

bbc.co.uk

The Mormon Church has apologised for posthumously baptising the parents of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal.

Jews Asher and Rosa Rapp Wiesenthal were baptised in proxy ceremonies in the US states of Arizona and Utah in January, records show.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spokesman Michael Purdy said the Church’ s leaders “sincerely regret” the actions of “an individual member”.

The Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced the news.

“We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, a spokesman at the centre.

The Mormon religion allows baptism after death, and believes the departed soul can then accept or reject the baptismal rites.

An agreement in 1995 was supposed to ban the practice of baptising by proxy Holocaust victims, after it was discovered the names of hundreds of thousands of those who died had been entered into Mormon records.

Simon Wiesenthal’s parents are long since deceased, with his father dying in World War I and his mother perishing in the Holocaust.

Wiesenthal himself died in 2005 after surviving the Holocaust and dedicating his life to documenting Nazi crimes and hunting down perpetrators.

‘Serious breach’

Mr Purdy told the Associated Press news agency that the church considered the act “a serious breach of our protocol”.

Recent Pages by researchok:
The Hierarchy of Sports John Brennan: Obama's Controversial CIA Pick Is the Best Man for the Job How the New York Times Screwed Martin Luther King Jr. Parrot Confounds German Police by Sounding Like an Abandoned Child Theater-Only Blockbuster Movies Playing on Computers Near You

Jump to bottom

59 comments

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:12:16pm

Involuntary, or forced, conversions should be deemed illegal as a matter of constitutional law. These conversions fly in the face of the provisos of the law that guarantee freedom of religious practice.

Archangelus Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:45:15pm

That’s OK, I know a bunch of rabbis getting ready to convert Joseph Smith to Judaism posthumously…
/
Heartless and stupid. If it’s a single member, don’t apologize - name him so that the family can take whatever action, legal or civil, they deem appropriate.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 1:29:36pm

re: #1 Turnabout is Fair Play

Involuntary, or forced, conversions should be deemed illegal as a matter of constitutional law. These conversions fly in the face of the provisos of the law that guarantee freedom of religious practice.

Of course, it’s not any kind of a conversion in the first place.
And really? Mormon posthumous baptisms are unconstitutional? *eyeroll*

Learned Pie Of Zion Wed, Feb 15, 2012 1:32:26pm

How can this harm or help the souls who are already with G-D?

What it does actually is slap in the face of survivors.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 1:47:59pm

lds.org

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

In fact, from the article in the opening post:

The Mormon religion allows baptism after death, and believes the departed soul can then accept or reject the baptismal rites.

CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:12:31pm

re: #5 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

To me it’s not a big deal. I mean, it’s all a matter belief in the first place, right? It’s only real in the sense and to the degree that the believer internally believes it to be so.

People from different religions have variying beliefs about what will guarantee someone being sent to heaven/hell, who is the most blessed, most special, etc.

Christians might believe that I’m doomed because I don’t accept that Jesus (a.s.) was the son of God and my lord & savior. I don’t believe that, so what do I care what they think/say? Likewise, why should Christians worry about what Muslims believe since they see it as a false belief anyway?

Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim and their parents turn them into Christians, Jews, etc. So what? Are people seriously going to fret over that? We also believe that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) was the “seal of the prophets”, i.e. the final prophet. That didn’t stop Sikhs, Baha’is, or Mormons from claiming prophethood of their founders. Ask me if I care—I don’t, because I don’t share their beliefs. According to my belief they are false prophets…just like Christians regard Muhammad (s.a.w.s) as a false prophet, and Jews don’t see Jesus (a.s.) as the Messiah.

Mormons might find my Muslim beliefs preposterous, and I might feel likewise about theirs. Okay, whatever. As a Muslim I don’t believe that a Mormon can override or undo the declaration of faith made by a Muslim, no matter how many ceremonies they perform or incantations/prayers they recite.¹ I don’t believe their ceremonies have the power to change anything, therefore they don’t have any power whatsoever from the perspective of my Muslim “reality”. *shrug*

^{1. Nor do I, as a Muslim, believe that they can summon already departed souls to ask them if they’d like to change their mind.}

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:23:19pm

re: #6 CuriousLurker

E-x-a-c-t-l-y.

There might be a question of “social” propriety, of course. But there’s the rub - the Mormons do not advertise these baptisms, do not annoy the families with baptism notices, etc. It’s done more or less in private. So the outrage is overblown.
It’s a true case of “sticks and stones”.

CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:39:42pm

re: #3 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Of course, it’s not any kind of a conversion in the first place.
And really? Mormon posthumous baptisms are unconstitutional? *eyeroll*

I agree (minus the eyeroll ;)). I don’t want the government legislating or in any way dictating the constitutionality of anyone’s religious practices. That would be a seriously slippery slope and would surely be a non-starter anyway as it would violate the First Amendment.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:42:07pm

re: #8 CuriousLurker

“…of anyone’s religious practices” (as long as they do not contradict other laws, e.g. no human sacrifice please! But that goes without saying ;)

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:43:31pm

re: #7 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Except now that it’s a thing, it will get reported on— especially when it’s someone famous. I agree that the outrage is overblown, but now that it’s here, it’s here. It’s become a thing, a kind of uncomfy reminder to the religious of the difficulties of navigating a religion supposedly applicable to all of mankind while engaging in PR.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:47:22pm

re: #3 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

There might be a civil suit that could be interesting. After all, I don’t believe that private employers can require someone to convert to Martianhood as a requisite for employment. The damage that needs to be demonstrated in a civil suit can come from the family. I don’t know that this would have legs, but if someone were to take a little time, I believe they could write a reasonable brief.

On another track—evidently there are golf courses in heaven, and they are restricted. The rules committee is very strict, so I have to posthumously choose, golf or Judaism? It happens on earth all of the time.

Having fun with the new monikers, eh Soybean?

CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:48:35pm

re: #9 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

“…of anyone’s religious practices” (as long as they do not contradict other laws, e.g. no human sacrifice please! But that goes without saying ;)

Well, yes, I thought about adding that, but figured that part would be assumed for the same reason (i.e. the First Amendment is designed to prevent “leakage” of religious laws into government/secular laws at all levels, therefore a religious practice/law cannot override the secular).

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:52:44pm

re: #11 Bob Levin

There might be a civil suit that could be interesting. After all, I don’t believe that private employers can require someone to convert to Martianhood as a requisite for employment. The damage that needs to be demonstrated in a civil suit can come from the family. I don’t know that this would have legs, but if someone were to take a little time, I believe they could write a reasonable brief.

How can a religious rite done in private and that damages no one, except being offensive which is not a crime, be a subject to any case? Any sane judge will throw it out with prejudice.

Sionainn Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:55:27pm

My Jewish sister-in-law refused to give my then-at-the-time Mormon sister any information regarding when she was born, where, or anything about her parents or other family members for that exact reason…she did not want her or her church doing any kind of baptizing.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 2:57:47pm

re: #13 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

That’s what lawyers do. They have to show damages in a civil suit. There is such a thing as emotional distress and psychological damage. If the brief is well done, it might go to court. The good lawyers get things into court, and the really good ones win the case. And the really really good ones settle for a boatload. ;-)

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:00:01pm

re: #15 Bob Levin

That’s what lawyers do. They have to show damages in a civil suit. There is such a thing as emotional distress and psychological damage.

Oh! I guess that the way the Islamists should have fought against those Mohammed cartoons.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:01:10pm

re: #16 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Damn straight, Puppy. (My suggestion for your next change)

CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:13:33pm

re: #17 Bob Levin

Damn straight, Puppy. (My suggestion for your next change)

Seriously? If people began filing civil suits every time their religious sensibilities were injured, the courts would collapse under the weight of them all. Just look around you at the present claims of persecution by the religious right.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:17:16pm

re: #18 CuriousLurker

If all religion causes me emotional distress, can I just sue everybody?

half-/

CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:19:03pm

re: #19 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

If all religion causes me emotional distress, can I just sue everybody?

half-/

See??
Even the atheists will start suing! /

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:35:25pm

re: #18 CuriousLurker

The courts are already collapsing, and have been for decades. That’s why there is such a growth in mediation. Juries are now used as Occam’s Razor. Have jury duty lately? You sit in a room full of 500 people, two cases go to court, while lawyers for everything else try to settle without going to trial. So a vast majority goes home at noon. That’s as far as I get. I assume after lunch the same thing happens. Only some folks spend the whole day waiting.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:37:04pm

re: #19 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Call James Sokolove. (Pretend that there are paragraphs of fine print following this)

CuriousLurker Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:10:18pm

re: #21 Bob Levin

The courts are already collapsing, and have been for decades…

And we should add to this over hurt feelings? No thanks. Besides, I can see it going something like this:

Judge: So you’re claim is for [insert $$$] in damages due to members of the LDS holding a baptism ceremony for your dearly departed sister, is that correct?

CL: Yes.

Judge: You’re Muslim, correct?

CL: Yes.

Judge: Do you believe that Mormons have the ability o summon the souls of deceased Muslims from the afterlife in order to ask them if they want to convert?

CL: No, but I was incredibly upset and offended that they presumed to be able to do so, and…

Judge: *sighs, facepalms* Being “offended” lacks the substance required to give your claim legal merit. You’re wasting the court’s time. Next!

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:27:56pm

re: #3 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Of course, it’s not any kind of a conversion in the first place.
And really? Mormon posthumous baptisms are unconstitutional? *eyeroll*

Are you a constitutional law specialist? Allow me to demonstrate the actionability of involuntary conversions:
Standing: As a non-Mormon, I am subject to posthumous conversion
Harm: The possibility of this involuntary conversion, along with the attendant ritual and my being put on a list of converted souls, causes me great emotional distress and apprehension. In fact, I suffer debilitating migraines as a result.
Harm: This concern and emotional distress cause me to practice my religion in a way other than I would otherwise desire; I do not practice as openly as I would like.
Harm: I have had to employ, at considerable cost, various services to ensure that I, along with my loved ones, are not forcibly converted posthumously. I believe that these posthumous conversions have an effect on the soul of the deceased - and religious practice is in large part about the soul and salvation, is it not?
Possible redress: Cease and desist all involuntary conversions.
Legal theory: Various constitutional and civil legal theories, along with equitable measures to reduce the emotional, physical and monetary harm I am suffering as a direct result of LDS posthumous conversions.

On these grounds alone I could get a case heard. So, funny man, please do carry on rolling your eyes and whatnot.

Velvet Elvis Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:29:54pm

FWIW, according to my gf who comes from a Mormon family, the soul has the right to refuse the Baptism and remain Jewish if it doesn’t want to go on to populate other planets or whatever.

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:37:42pm

re: #25 Conservative Moonbat

The Mormon belief component is not necessarily relevant. As a non-Mormon, I have no interest in getting involved with Mormon eschatology. I don’t go around digging up fresh Mormon bodies to circumcise them, with the justification that if they don’t believe in the Covenant, it’s not a big deal.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:42:47pm

re: #24 Turnabout is Fair Play

You don’t even understand that posthumous baptism is not a posthumous conversion, as explained above in detail. If you prefer your ignorance to facts, then so be it.

Also, the silliness of your comment caused me some emotional distress. I should sue you, I guess.

wrenchwench Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:50:42pm

re: #1 Turnabout is Fair Play

Involuntary, or forced, conversions should be deemed illegal as a matter of constitutional law. These conversions fly in the face of the provisos of the law that guarantee freedom of religious practice.

That’s like saying the Constitution should protect me from others who want to pray for me.

**eyeroll**

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:52:07pm

Standing: As a conservative Muslim, I am subject to seeing depictions of Prophet Muhammad in the media.
Harm: The possibility of appearance of these depictions along with possible desecration of Muhammad’s image in various cartoons causes me great emotional distress and apprehension. In fact, I suffer debilitating migraines as a result.
Harm: This concern and emotional distress cause me to practice my religion in a way other than I would otherwise desire; I do not practice as openly as I would like.
Harm: I have had to employ, at considerable cost, various services to ensure that I, along with my loved ones, am not subjected to visuals of Prophet Muhammad. I believe that these blasphemous depictions are forbidden by my religion and cause God’s wrath.
Possible redress: Cease and desist all depictions of the Prophet in the media.
Legal theory: Various constitutional and civil legal theories, along with equitable measures to reduce the emotional, physical and monetary harm I am suffering as a direct result of the media depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:52:26pm

re: #28 wrenchwench

That’s like saying the Constitution should protect me from others who want to pray for me.

**eyeroll**

Exactly. On both counts.

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:58:09pm

re: #28 wrenchwench

That’s like saying the Constitution should protect me from others who want to pray for me.

**eyeroll**

Sorry, nonsense. The two have nothing in common, and if you think more carefully about this, you will see the difference. It’s more akin to saying that I want protection from people who will pray for me only if they can forcibly position me to join their religion. It is the same intellectual process as saying it is okay for a Neobaptist to push my head underwater (or pour water over my head), since I don’t have to acknowledge Jesus Christ afterwards. Prayer is non-invasive. My argument is that the action of conversion is an unwanted act, performed on me or my family posthumously. What if someone whet around swapping all non-Christian headstones at cemeteries for crosses. Would that be okay? No emotional stress associated with that? Not in any way actionable?

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 4:58:46pm

re: #30 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Exactly. On both counts. Stupid beyond words.

As for you: Ever the clever one with comments, but not much butter on the intellectual side of the bread.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:00:02pm

re: #32 Turnabout is Fair Play

As for you: Ever the clever one with comments, but not much butter on the intellectual side of the bread.

Heh. Ad hominems is all you have.

wrenchwench Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:02:32pm

re: #31 Turnabout is Fair Play

Sorry, nonsense. The two have nothing in common, and if you think more carefully about this, you will see the difference. It’s more akin to saying that I want protection from people who will pray for me only if they can forcibly position me to join their religion. It is the same intellectual process as saying it is okay for a Neobaptist to push my head underwater (or pour water over my head), since I don’t have to acknowledge Jesus Christ afterwards. Prayer is non-invasive. My argument is that the action of conversion is an unwanted act, performed on me or my family posthumously. What if someone whet around swapping all non-Christian headstones at cemeteries for crosses. Would that be okay? No emotional stress associated with that? Not in any way actionable?

You are confusing actions with physical objects and persons with somebody saying some words where neither you nor your family can even hear them. You are also not acknowledging the point in #25.

And with that, I’m out ‘til tomorrow. I’ll be back with some butter.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:21:42pm

re: #23 CuriousLurker

I appreciate the skit, but that’s not exactly how the legal system works. The idea is for each lawyer to bluff the other lawyer into thinking that if it does get to court then they have at least one chance in hell of winning. Poker.

The idea is to settle, not win.

Achilles Tang Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:23:46pm

Why can’t they just do their little voodoo stuff and then keep quiet about it. Neither the dead nor the living would give a damn.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:24:06pm

re: #24 Turnabout is Fair Play

Not bad.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:25:26pm

re: #36 Red Sea Desjardini Tang

Why can’t they just do their little voodoo stuff and then keep quiet about it. Neither the dead nor the living would give a damn.

They do keep quiet. Somebody went through the baptismal records and published the story.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:26:30pm

re: #29 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

By jove, I think he’s got it. It’s raining in Spaining.

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:29:35pm

re: #32 Turnabout is Fair Play

Careful, he’s a tzaddik. I’m not kidding.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:30:44pm

A case similar in substance and actually much more extreme has actually been decided in courts.

en.wikipedia.org

Certainly the Nazis marching with swastikas caused a much greater and more immediate emotional distress.

What, me worry? Wed, Feb 15, 2012 5:53:51pm

I’m not going to talk lawsuits. I don’t know about lawsuits. I’m talking about respect for the dead. Maybe some people don’t care about that. Let me tell you why I care.

This NPR article says the Mormons mean no bad intent. In fact, they claim they are doing it out of love. Yes, they love us Jews so much, they want to turn us into Christians and not be Jews at all. The perfect Jew. Just like Pam Geller who says the only “moderate Muslim” is the Muslim who is not a Muslim at all but an atheist (Hirsi Ali) or a Christian convert (Darwish). Yep, those are the only good Muslims.

Already dead Jews? Even better. They can’t complain. Or fight back. Or say NO.

Judaism means a lot more to me than a belief in Gd. It’s a cultural experience for me. It’s a connection, not just to the family I know, but to millions of people who gave their lives so that I could declare myself a Jew and live the life I want as a Jew. Not just the 6 million who perished, maybe a few dozen of those whose blood I carry, but every last Jewish life since Abraham. And that’s not a bunch of bullshit. It’s real and quite frankly, the only thing about me that is real. It’s a lineage and it has meaning and I don’t take lightly those who would disgrace and sully that meaning, and worse, to steal it without my knowledge.

The life my family gave for me to be here? The torture they endured for me because they were Jews? The only reason they died was because they were Jews! And people here say my outraged is misplaced.

So not only are the Mormons crazy and insane, but they’re also cowards, because NO is not enough when they come knocking at my door, apparently.

I’m logging out. I don’t want to argue. Maybe I’ll come back and read responses, but I don’t know. I really just wanted to let you know how angry this makes me.

The War TARDIS Wed, Feb 15, 2012 6:00:21pm

re: #42 marjoriemoon

Exactly! Thank you! I was trying to find way in words to describe why this pissed me off, and you did it. Thank You!

Bob Levin Wed, Feb 15, 2012 6:32:04pm

re: #42 marjoriemoon

Of course you’re right on all counts. But the reason we went to law is because that is the only recourse, the alternative is violence. That’s been pointed out above.

The alternative to anger is to get silly, get a little bit impish like Wiesel—or maybe throw a scare into those performing the rituals with the threat that it’s not going to be secret and it’s not going to be without monetary cost.

If I’m dead and forced to show up at one of these rituals, I’m charging time and a half, that’s union. The MLB players think that they have a strong union. They ain’t seen union.

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 8:19:01pm

re: #40 Bob Levin

Careful, he’s a tzaddik. I’m not kidding.

If we had private messaging on this site, you could explain. Meanwhile, I am left with what I observe.

shutdown Wed, Feb 15, 2012 8:21:56pm

re: #33 Tofu Romney (Mitt’s Evil Twin)

Heh. Ad hominems is all you have.

We have already had that conversation in the past. If you want to deflect, dissemble, and practice avoidance by using flip remarks rather than engage in at least a semi-serious discussion, that is certainly your choice. I don’t always have the time to post comments on LGF, but when I take the time, it is not to post “eyerolls” and “Meh”.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:25:16am

re: #46 Turnabout is Fair Play

We have already had that conversation in the past.

I don’t believe this is the case. Or at least I don’t remember any such discussion.

If you want to deflect, dissemble, and practice avoidance by using flip remarks rather than engage in at least a semi-serious discussion, that is certainly your choice. I don’t always have the time to post comments on LGF, but when I take the time, it is not to post “eyerolls” and “Meh”.

I have engaged in a semi-serious discussion, as have others. You have neither addressed all the arguments, nor acknowledged the obvious mistakes.

What, me worry? Thu, Feb 16, 2012 8:08:14am

re: #44 Bob Levin

Of course you’re right on all counts. But the reason we went to law is because that is the only recourse, the alternative is violence. That’s been pointed out above.

The alternative to anger is to get silly, get a little bit impish like Wiesel—or maybe throw a scare into those performing the rituals with the threat that it’s not going to be secret and it’s not going to be without monetary cost.

If I’m dead and forced to show up at one of these rituals, I’m charging time and a half, that’s union. The MLB players think that they have a strong union. They ain’t seen union.

There are laws protecting the dead and respect for the dead so maybe it’s not completely impossible. I like Turnabout’s reference to moving around headstones, or putting a cross on a Jewish headstone or something of the sort. I thought that was an awesome analogy.

The reason a lawsuit doesn’t seem feasible to me is that I think Wiesel would have gone to court already, but maybe not. I would like to see it stopped and when people are hit in their pocketbooks, they tend to stop.

Meanwhile, all we have is silence from Romney?

What, me worry? Thu, Feb 16, 2012 8:10:19am

re: #40 Bob Levin

Careful, he’s a tzaddik. I’m not kidding.

And btw, I wouldn’t be so sure about that either… I’m not convinced all is what it appears.

shutdown Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:25:17am

re: #49 marjoriemoon

I’m obviously missing something. Why would he be anything close to a tzaddik?

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:26:10am

re: #50 Turnabout is Fair Play

You don’t get Bob’s humor. I often don’t, also.

shutdown Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:27:51am

re: #51 e_e

*smh* I guess not. I’m going to drop this part of the discussion because I can see no good coming of it.

shutdown Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:30:51am

re: #27 e_e

You don’t even understand that posthumous baptism is not a posthumous conversion, as explained above in detail. If you prefer your ignorance to facts, then so be it.

Also, the silliness of your comment caused me some emotional distress. I should sue you, I guess.

My point is that it is irrelevant whether the act of posthumous baptism is a full conversion, or not. Much the same as a posthumous circumcision and immersion in the mikva won’t make you Jewish. Does that mitigate or even negate the impact of the act?

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Feb 16, 2012 10:36:41am

re: #53 Turnabout is Fair Play

In all your hypothetical motions above you use “conversion”, and that’s just factually wrong. Try to rewrite them without this incorrect equivalence, and see what happens. It certainly is relevant. How it can be not? No automatic conversion was either performed, or even intended. It’s an equivalent of someone praying for someone else’s conversion to another religion. It may be obnoxious, but it’s not illegal.

shutdown Thu, Feb 16, 2012 11:07:45am

re: #54 e_e

In all your hypothetical motions above you use “conversion”, and that’s just factually wrong. Try to rewrite them without this incorrect equivalence, and see what happens. It certainly is relevant. How it can be not? No automatic conversion was either performed, or even intended. It’s an equivalent of someone praying for someone else’s conversion to another religion. It may be obnoxious, but it’s not illegal.

Look, we’re not going to agree. I see the baptisms as an active intervention meant to interfere with the religious practice of others. I quickly backed away from the pure conversion argument. But the baptism, to my mind, is an unwanted, active intervention in the religious freedom of others (and to my mind, illegal as a result). If I sit across the table from Mormon who has posthumously baptized my grandmother, we have a completely different opinion on the state of her soul. If he had just prayed for my grandmother, we would not have this difference of opinion. There is a subjective change of state. That is the foundation of my discomfort.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Feb 16, 2012 11:37:22am

re: #55 Turnabout is Fair Play

If someone physically vandalized someone else’s ancestor’s grave, or physically tried to “baptize” someone, even without an attempt at an automatic conversion - your examples above - that would be illegal. Because that’s physical interference with people and property. This violates the principles of autonomy.

With these rites we’re talking about mere speech, without any physical interference. They may be offensive to the extreme, but they don’t actually interfere with anyone’s rights, because they don’t signify anything that’s provably real. They don’t change reality. That’s an expression of a religious opinion. As such, in the US it is protected.

shutdown Thu, Feb 16, 2012 12:54:36pm

re: #56 e_e

An expression of opinion is not directional, i.e. I can express the opinion that everybody must accept Jesus as their Saviour. I can then pray for the souls of those who do not so accept Jesus. But I cannot take unilateral steps towards the conversion of others against their will - dead or alive. Whether the baptism is a first or intermediate step towards conversion, it is such a step. I do not recognize this action as the free expression of religious opinion; rather it is a first, unilateral step towards refuting the legitimacy of my religious practice and beliefs, and as much a de facto violation of the dead as grave robbery. I also challenge the official version of Mormon baptism as presented here. As a practical matter in the eyes of the LDS, I am convinced that they view the baptism as a unilateral conversion process. I have worked very closely with a number of observant Mormons, who have actively participated in these baptismal rites, and they have to a man described them as conversions. In my opinion, intent is an important component of the act.

I think it is disingenuous to state that LDS posthumous baptisms are as harmless and well-intentioned as prayer. Mormons pray, as well. Baptism is not prayer, and moving my dead family towards involuntary conversion - even infinitesimally - is a violation of religious freedom.

Changing reality, as per your post, is a slippery slope when it comes to religion. No religious conviction changes reality; no prayer has an immediate, palpable effect on the environment. Protected speech and protected actions are not analogous.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:21:09pm

re: #57 Turnabout is Fair Play

I don’t understand what you mean by refutation of legitimacy of religious belief. Mormon actions do not refute legitimacy of your belief in any legal sense. LDS Church is not an official govt org. Your religious freedoms are not diminished by anyone’s private opinion about you, even if this opinion is expressed in some private religious rituals. As long as you are not forced to convert, how are your legal religious rights violated?

The dead are not people in the eye of the law and don’t have rights. They cannot be moved to involuntary conversion in the eyes of the law - the terms are not even applicable here. They don’t have freedoms that can be diminished. And while there are laws against grave robbery, they pertain to literal grave robbery. You may see it as a metaphorical grave robbery, and that is understandable, but it’s not such under the law.

As to the conversion v. baptism, there is the official stand of the Church. If laymen misunderstand it, how can the Church be legally responsible?
However, the conversion v. baptism thing is only relevant because 10 states have defamation of the dead laws. If Mormons did conversions, I guess you could have a shadow of a case in one of those states. It wouldn’t be a “constitutional case”, and I think it would be likely to be thrown out, but one could at least try, I guess. But since LDS officially doesn’t do the conversions, the success is even less likely.

Anyway, don’t you think that if there were legal options, nobody would have tried them a decade ago, during the height of the scandal?

shutdown Thu, Feb 16, 2012 2:07:30pm

Ok, let’s try something else for the sake of argument. Clearly, we have different opinions on this issue, as presented. I ask you, though, at what point do I have a right to object to other’s religious ministrations, be they ever so well intentioned? Baptism is not a full conversion - granted. If the conversions process were completed un the eyes of the Church of LDS, and I was entered into their membership rolls without an act of acceptance on my part - could I object to that? Would I have a right, in your view, to make such an objection? And if I did have the right to protest my involuntary conversion, or the involuntary full conversion of the dead, should I have the ability to enforce this right? According to you, no harm no foul. I would be forced to suffer this act without redress.

What if there is some form of harm? Perhaps it is my sincerely held belief that if I knowingly allow myself or my ancestors to be converted, (or in fact, baptized, but we have removed that from the discussion), then my access to “Heaven” is compromised. Judaism does not believe in the validity of conversion away from the Jewish faith, yet I am still required to resist that conversion. So, still no harm, in your view? Religious conviction is a powerful thing, that is why it’s unfettered practice is enshrined in the Constitution. Where do my rights to religious self-determination and the freedom from interference begin to adhere? Aren’t my rights by definition delineated by the rights of others?

The courts might shy away from this type of litigation because the problems are intractable. But that does not change the fact that real rights and freedoms are at stake. Proxy baptisms are not meaningless and harmless, or the Mormons would not perform them. They are not “inward looking”, since they are performed upon those outside the faith. I have the right as a free citizen, and perhaps the obligation as a Jew, to resist them, and fight for their reversal.

I think that the discussion of the difference between “expression” and “action” is one we would have to have in person, to avoid acrimony and to know when to call it quits.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!